Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
Syllabus
Chief Justice: Justices:
Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Joan L. Larsen
Kurtis T. Wilder
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been Reporter of Decisions:
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Kathryn L. Loomis
BARUCH SLS, INC v TITTABAWASSEE TOWNSHIP
Docket No. 152047. Argued on application for leave to appeal December 8, 2016.
Decided June 28, 2017.
Baruch SLS, Inc., a Michigan nonprofit corporation, sought exemptions from real and
personal property taxes as a charitable institution under MCL 211.7o and MCL 211.9 for tax
years 2010–2012. Petitioner based its request on the fact that it offered an income-based subsidy
to qualifying residents of Stone Crest Assisted Living, one of its adult foster care facilities,
provided those residents had made at least 24 monthly payments to petitioner. The Tax Tribunal
ruled that Stone Crest was not eligible for the exemptions because petitioner did not qualify as a
charitable institution under three of the six factors set forth in Wexford Med Group v City of
Cadillac, 474 Mich 192 (2006). The Court of Appeals, OWENS, P.J., and MURRAY, J. (JANSEN,
J., concurring), in an unpublished per curiam opinion, reversed the Tax Tribunal’s findings with
respect to two of the Wexford factors but affirmed the denial of the exemptions on the ground
that petitioner had failed to satisfy the third Wexford factor because, by limiting the availability
of its income-based subsidy, petitioner offered its services on a discriminatory basis. Petitioner
sought leave to appeal. The Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant
the application or take other peremptory action. 499 Mich 887 (2016).
In a unanimous opinion by Justice MCCORMACK, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the
Supreme Court held:
When evaluating whether an institution has met the requirements of the third Wexford
factor by offering its charity on a nondiscriminatory basis, the key question is whether the
restrictions or conditions that the institution imposes bear a reasonable relationship to a
permissible charitable goal under the fourth Wexford factor. If a reasonable relationship exists,
the third Wexford factor is satisfied. Because the Tax Tribunal and the Court of Appeals decided
the question in this case on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the third Wexford factor,
the portions of their opinions discussing this factor were vacated and the case was remanded for
further proceedings.
1. To qualify for real and personal property tax exemptions under MCL 211.7o(1), the
property must be owned and occupied by a nonprofit charitable institution and occupied by that
institution solely for the purposes for which it was incorporated. Similarly, MCL 211.9(1)(a)
exempts from taxation the personal property of charitable, educational, and scientific institutions,
subject to some limitations. The term “charitable institution” is not defined in the statute, but the
Wexford Court held that a charitable institution (1) must be a nonprofit institution, (2) is
organized chiefly, if not solely, for charity, (3) does not offer its charity on a discriminatory basis
by choosing who among the group it purports to serve deserves the services but rather serves any
person who needs the particular type of charity being offered, (4) brings people’s minds or hearts
under the influence of education or religion; relieves people’s bodies from disease, suffering, or
constraint; assists people to establish themselves for life; erects or maintains public buildings or
works; or otherwise lessens the burdens of government, (5) does not charge for its services more
than what is needed for its successful maintenance, and (6) need not meet any monetary
threshold of charity if the overall nature of the institution is charitable.
2. The act of charging fees for its services does not disqualify an organization from being
classified as a charitable institution for purposes of MCL 211.7o and MCL 211.9 on the ground
that it offers its services on a discriminatory basis, nor does the act of selecting its beneficiaries.
Wexford’s fifth factor specifically allows a charitable institution to charge an amount necessary
to remain financially stable. The analysis of a charitable institution’s fees should be conducted
under factor five of the Wexford test rather than factor three.
3. Wexford’s third factor is intended to exclude organizations that discriminate by
imposing purposeless restrictions on the beneficiaries of the charity, and it accomplishes this
goal by banning restrictions or conditions on charity that bear no reasonable relationship to an
organization’s legitimate charitable goals. Whether a charitable institution has a permissible
charitable goal is evaluated in factor four, which includes bringing people’s minds or hearts
under the influence of education or religion; relieving people’s bodies from disease, suffering, or
constraint; assisting people to establish themselves for life; erecting or maintaining public
buildings or works; or otherwise lessening the burdens of government. If the institution’s
restriction is reasonably related to a goal that meets this standard, then it is acceptable under
Wexford’s third factor. The “reasonable relationship” test should be construed quite broadly to
prevent unnecessarily limiting the restrictions a charity may choose to place on its services. The
relationship between the institution’s restriction and its charitable goal need not be the most
direct or obvious, and any reasonable restriction that is implemented to further a charitable goal
that passes Wexford’s fourth factor is acceptable.
Court of Appeals judgment vacated in part; Tax Tribunal opinion vacated in part; case
remanded to the Tax Tribunal for further proceedings.
©2017 State of Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
OPINION
Chief Justice: Justices:
Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Joan L. Larsen
Kurtis T. Wilder
FILED June 28, 2017
STATE OF MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT
BARUCH SLS, INC.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v No. 152047
TITTABAWASSEE TOWNSHIP,
Respondent-Appellee.
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
MCCORMACK, J.
In this case, we consider whether petitioner, Baruch SLS, Inc. (Baruch), qualifies
as a charitable institution for purposes of the exemptions from real and personal property
taxes set forth in MCL 211.7o and MCL 211.9. In Wexford Med Group v City of
Cadillac, 474 Mich 192; 713 NW2d 734 (2006), we articulated a six-factor test for
determining whether an institution qualifies as a charitable institution. We now clarify
Wexford’s third factor, which requires that an institution not offer its charity on a
“discriminatory basis.” Id. at 215.
As set forth below, the third factor in the Wexford test excludes only restrictions or
conditions on charity that bear no reasonable relationship to a permissible charitable goal.
Because the lower courts did not consider Baruch’s policies under the proper
understanding of this factor, we vacate the Court of Appeals’ and Tax Tribunal’s
opinions in part and remand this case to the Tax Tribunal for proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Baruch is a Michigan nonprofit corporation registered as tax-exempt under Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1 Baruch’s adult foster care facility, Stone Crest
Assisted Living (Stone Crest), is open to individuals eighteen years of age and older and
is licensed as a specialized care unit with programs for the aged, developmentally
disabled, physically handicapped, and mentally ill. An individual may request admission
to the facility for the purpose of receiving room, board, supervised personal care, and
assistance with medications.
Baruch subscribes to a “faith based” philosophy in its operations, but it is not
affiliated with any denomination or church, and it does not consider race, religion, color,
or national origin in admissions. Baruch does not admit individuals who require
1
26 USC 501(c)(3).
2
isolation, restraint, or constant professional nursing care, unless the applicant is being
admitted to hospice.
No financial disclosures are required for admission, and Baruch contends that
admission decisions are not based on an applicant’s ability to pay. Baruch’s target
occupants, who consist of the elderly and persons with disabilities, however, all qualify
for Social Security and therefore all have some ability to pay. And Baruch has never
admitted any resident who did not have some ability to pay. But no resident has ever
been discharged from the facility for non-payment.
Baruch also maintains an “Income Based Program” at Stone Crest, which reduces
a resident’s monthly rate on the basis of his or her income. Baruch’s written policy for
this program includes the following eligibility criteria:
• A resident must have lived at Stone Crest and have made a minimum of 24 full
monthly payments.
• A resident must apply for and be determined eligible for Medicaid.
• A resident must provide information about all available income.
The policy also states that only 25% of the available rooms at Stone Crest can be used for
the Income Based Program at a given time.
Baruch alleges that, in practice, it has often departed from the written policy. For
example, Baruch claims that it has, on an ad hoc basis, admitted residents to the Income
Based Program without 24 prior payments, admitted new residents directly into the
program, and filled nearly 40% of the available beds with residents in the Income Based
Program.
3
Baruch sought tax-exempt status for real and personal property taxes under MCL
211.7o and MCL 211.9 for the years 2010–2012, but was denied. The Tax Tribunal held
that Baruch was not entitled to a charitable exemption because Baruch did not satisfy
factors three, five, and six of the following test, set forth in Wexford, for determining
whether a taxpayer is a “charitable institution” under MCL 211.7o and MCL 211.9:
(1) A “charitable institution” must be a nonprofit institution.
(2) A “charitable institution” is one that is organized chiefly, if not
solely, for charity.
(3) A “charitable institution” does not offer its charity on a
discriminatory basis by choosing who, among the group it purports to
serve, deserves the services. Rather, a “charitable institution” serves any
person who needs the particular type of charity being offered.
(4) A “charitable institution” brings people’s minds or hearts under
the influence of education or religion; relieves people’s bodies from
disease, suffering, or constraint; assists people to establish themselves for
life; erects or maintains public buildings or works; or otherwise lessens the
burdens of government.
(5) A “charitable institution” can charge for its services as long as
the charges are not more than what is needed for its successful
maintenance.
(6) A “charitable institution” need not meet any monetary threshold
of charity to merit the charitable institution exemption; rather, if the overall
nature of the institution is charitable, it is a “charitable institution”
regardless of how much money it devotes to charitable activities in a
particular year. [Wexford, 474 Mich at 215.]
Of particular interest here, the tribunal held that Baruch offered its charity on a
discriminatory basis, in violation of factor three. The tribunal also held that Baruch had
not met its burden to prove that the rates it charged were not more than what was needed
4
for its successful maintenance, in violation of factor five, and that Baruch’s overall nature
of operation was commercial, in violation of factor six.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the tribunal’s judgment, on the basis that Baruch’s
policies were discriminatory within the group it served in violation of factor three. 2 But
the Court of Appeals reversed the tribunal regarding factors five and six. Because neither
party has challenged the Court of Appeals decision regarding factors five and six, the sole
issue on appeal is whether Baruch’s policies are discriminatory within the meaning of
factor three.
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
To qualify for real and personal property tax exemptions under MCL 211.7o(1),
the property must be “owned and occupied by a nonprofit charitable institution . . . [and]
occupied by that . . . institution solely for the purposes for which [it] was incorporated.”
Similarly, MCL 211.9(1)(a) exempts from taxation the “personal property of charitable,
educational, and scientific institutions,” subject to some limitations. The term “charitable
institution” is not defined in the statute, but this Court has interpreted the meaning of that
phrase on several occasions.
In Wexford, we announced the above-described test for evaluating whether an
institution is “charitable.” The Court in Wexford began its analysis with the statutory
language governing the charitable exemption:
“Real or personal property owned and occupied by a nonprofit
charitable institution while occupied by that nonprofit charitable institution
2
Judge JANSEN concurred in the result only.
5
solely for the purposes for which it was incorporated is exempt from the
collection of taxes under this act.” [Wexford, 474 Mich at 199, quoting
MCL 211.7o.]
The “central inquiry” in Wexford was “whether petitioner [was] a ‘charitable institution,’
and, in a more general sense, what precise meaning that term has.” Id. To answer that
question, we analyzed the history of the term “charitable institution” in our caselaw. Id.
at 205-212.
From a century of doctrine we saw “[s]everal common threads.” Id. at 212. The
first was that “the institution’s activities as a whole must be examined; it is improper to
focus on one particular facet or activity.” Id. Second, we noted that the organization can
serve a particular group, but that within that group it must not discriminate. As we
explained,
the organization must offer its charitable deeds to benefit people who need
the type of charity being offered. In a general sense, there can be no
restrictions on those who are afforded the benefit of the institution’s
charitable deeds. This does not mean, however, that a charity has to serve
every single person regardless of the type of charity offered or the type of
charity sought. Rather, a charitable institution can exist to serve a
particular group or type of person, but the charitable institution cannot
discriminate within that group. The charitable institution’s reach and
preclusions must be gauged in terms of the type and scope of charity it
offers. [Id. at 213.]
We concluded that the definition of “charity” set forth in Retirement Homes of the Detroit
Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc v Sylvan Twp, 416 Mich 340,
348-349; 330 NW2d 682 (1982), encapsulates what an exemption claimant must show to
constitute a charitable institution:
“[Charity] * * * [is] a gift, to be applied consistently with existing
laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing
their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by
6
relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting
them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining public
buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.”
[Wexford, 474 Mich at 214 (quotation marks and citation omitted;
alterations in original).]
Applying the six-factor test, we held that the petitioner in Wexford was a
charitable institution. Among other reasons, we emphasized that
[p]etitioner has a charity care program that offers free and reduced-cost
medical care to the indigent with no restrictions. It operates under an open-
access policy under which it accepts any patient who walks through its
doors, with preferential treatment given to no one. Although petitioner
sustains notable financial losses by not restricting the number of Medicare
and Medicaid patients it accepts, it bears those losses rather than restricting
its treatment of patients who cannot afford to pay. [Id. at 216-217.]
Thus, because the petitioner “provid[ed] a gift—free or below-cost health care—to an
indefinite number of people by relieving them of disease or suffering,” it was entitled to
the exemption. Id. at 220-221.
III. ANALYSIS
The Wexford test is designed to differentiate charitable organizations from other
kinds of institutions, but it is not designed to require an institution to offer its services
entirely free or to select its recipients using only arbitrary criteria, such as first-come,
first-serve, in order to qualify as a charitable institution. Yet the language in Wexford is,
to some extent, susceptible to this interpretation, and indeed, this is how lower courts
have understood Wexford’s third factor.
Since Wexford, the Tax Tribunal has, on several occasions, interpreted the test’s
third factor—that the institution not discriminate—as excluding organizations from the
tax exemption simply because they charged fees for their services. Specifically, the
7
tribunal has held that a facility seeking an exemption as a low-cost daycare did not satisfy
the third factor solely because it did not accept those who could not afford to pay at all.
Genesee Christian Day Care Servs, Inc v City of Wyoming, unpublished opinion of the
Michigan Tax Tribunal, issued Dec 22, 2011 (Docket No. 361657), pp 20-21. Similarly,
the tribunal has held that a gymnastics facility that offered financial assistance in the form
of scholarships was not a charitable organization, partially because it did not offer
scholarships to all who might benefit. Boyne Area Gymnastics, Inc v Boyne City,
unpublished opinion of the Michigan Tax Tribunal, issued Mar 23, 2011 (Docket No.
320068), p 7. The Court of Appeals has similarly analyzed this issue. North Ottawa Rod
& Gun Club, Inc v Grand Haven Charter Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the
Court of Appeals, issued August 21, 2007 (Docket No. 268308), p 3 (holding that the
petitioner’s recreational facilities could not be considered gifts to the general public
without restriction because the property was only available to the general public for a
fee).
Further, relying on Wexford’s statement that a charitable institution may not
“choos[e] who, among the group it purports to serve, deserves the services,” Wexford,
474 Mich at 215, the tribunal and the Court of Appeals have also interpreted the third
factor to forbid a charitable institution from selecting its beneficiaries at all. For instance,
the Court of Appeals has affirmed the Tax Tribunal’s conclusion that an institution that
“selects scholarship recipients through a highly subjective application process” based on
the candidates’ essays, references, community service, and other accomplishments
offered its charity on a “discriminatory basis.” Telluride Ass’n Inc v City of Ann Arbor,
unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 16, 2013 (Docket
8
No. 304735), p 4. Yet if an institution cannot serve everyone who could benefit from the
service (as most cannot), surely it will have to select its beneficiaries in some manner.
But the Tax Tribunal in the case below disapproved of any selection, stating that “[t]he
mere process of selecting residents who will receive reduced rent requires some level of
discrimination in that a choice must be made from the group Petitioner purports to serve.”
Baruch SLS, Inc v Tittabawassee Twp, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Tax
Tribunal, issued Dec 20, 2013 (Docket No. 395010), p 15. The Court of Appeals
similarly concluded that Baruch had failed to comply with Wexford factor three because
its “policy means petitioner does not ‘serve[] any person who needs the particular type of
charity being offered.’ ” Baruch, unpub op at 5, quoting Wexford, 471 Mich at 215.
Under this kind of analysis, it is unclear how a charitable institution can comply with the
third factor unless, perhaps, it allocates its services using an arbitrary metric, such as a
lottery or first-come, first-serve.
We see several problems with interpreting Wexford factor three to exclude an
organization from the definition of a charitable institution if it charges any amount or
uses any non-random selection criteria. First, as noted above, it creates an internal
inconsistency in Wexford’s factors. Factor five specifically allows a charitable institution
to charge an amount necessary to remain financially stable. See Wexford, 474 Mich at
215 (“A ‘charitable institution’ can charge for its services as long as the charges are not
more than what is needed for its successful maintenance.”). Factor three should be read
harmoniously with factor five, and the current interpretation employed by the lower
courts does not do so. Second, it is inconsistent with our precedent. In Mich Sanitarium
& Benevolent Ass’n v Battle Creek, 138 Mich 676; 101 NW 855 (1904), a case on which
9
Wexford relied, the hospital at issue did not offer its services entirely for free. Id. at 681.
Indeed, the Court refused to hold “that a hospital organized under the law in question
cannot collect from patients treated by it sufficient funds for its proper maintenance,”
because such a holding would require taxes to be paid on any charitable institution that
was not maintained through “private means.” Id. at 683. The Court noted that “[t]he act
contains nothing to warrant such a holding.” Id.
Third, the interpretation employed by the lower courts requires charitable
institutions to operate at a loss. Charitable institutions incur costs in the provision of their
services. Requiring them to provide their services entirely for free, without regard for
their ability to do so, is unrealistic and unsustainable. Factor five and the other Wexford
factors strike the right balance. We hold that the analysis of a charitable institution’s fees
should not be conducted under factor three of the Wexford test. Instead, such fees should
be assessed under factor five.
But restrictions or conditions designed to limit or choose who is entitled to receive
the charity, such as Baruch’s written policy that a resident must have lived at Stone Crest
and have made a minimum of 24 monthly payments before entering the Income Based
Program, are the subject of factor three. Factor three is intended to exclude organizations
that discriminate by imposing purposeless restrictions on the beneficiaries of the charity.
We clarify that Wexford factor three accomplishes this goal by banning restrictions or
conditions on charity that bear no reasonable relationship to an organization’s legitimate
charitable goals. See Wexford, 474 Mich at 213 (“The charitable institution’s reach and
10
preclusions must be gauged in terms of the type and scope of charity it offers.”). 3
Whether a charitable institution has a permissible charitable goal is evaluated in factor
four, which includes “bring[ing] people’s minds or hearts under the influence of
education or religion; reliev[ing] people’s bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint;
assist[ing] people to establish themselves for life; erect[ing] or maintain[ing] public
buildings or works; or otherwise lessen[ing] the burdens of government.” Id. at 215. If
the institution’s restriction is reasonably related to a goal that meets this standard, then it
is acceptable under Wexford factor three.
The “reasonable relationship” test should be construed quite broadly to prevent
unnecessarily limiting the restrictions a charity may choose to place on its services.
Other states, employing similar tests, have interpreted them flexibly to allow a charity,
for example, to limit itself to the most qualified groups, see Mayo Foundation v Comm’r
of Revenue, 306 Minn 25, 37-38; 236 NW2d 767 (1975), to restrict its services to those
3
Other jurisdictions have used a similar method to analyze restrictions or conditions on
charity. See North Star Research Institute v Hennepin Co, 306 Minn 1, 6; 236 NW2d
754 (1975); see also Utah Co v Intermountain Health Care, Inc, 709 P2d 265, 270 n 6
(Utah, 1985) (adopting a six-factor standard “adapted from” the North Star factors).
The North Star factors are similar to the Wexford factors in many respects. In
particular, North Star factor five, which is similar to Wexford factor three, inquires
“whether the beneficiaries of the ‘charity’ are restricted or unrestricted and, if restricted,
whether the class of persons to whom the charity is made available is one having a
reasonable relationship to the charitable objectives[.]” North Star, 306 Minn at 6; see
also Worthington Dormitory, Inc v Comm’r of Revenue, 292 NW2d 276, 280-282 (Minn,
1980) (holding that a foundation’s dormitory was tax-exempt when the only restriction on
the beneficiaries of the charity was a requirement that residents be students at nearby
community college, because such a restriction reasonably related to the foundation’s
purpose of providing nonprofit housing to students).
11
persons its services are tailored to serve, see Yorgason v Co Bd of Equalization of Salt
Lake Co, 714 P2d 653, 654-655, 657 (Utah, 1986), and to tailor its services toward
groups that are particularly disadvantaged and have specific needs, see White Earth Land
Recovery Project v Becker Co, 544 NW2d 778, 781 (Minn, 1996).
Examples may help demonstrate the flexibility of this test. A low-cost daycare
organized to provide services to low-income families could reasonably prioritize the
applications of single-parent families. Single-parent households might often, for wholly
obvious and understandable reasons, have lower income than households with two
parents. Single-parent households might also be less likely to have a parent able to stay
home with the child and, therefore, are again more likely to be in need of daycare
services. This restriction would thus bear a reasonable relationship to the organization’s
charitable goals because it seeks to provide its services to those most in need of such
services. 4
By contrast, a low-cost daycare that prioritizes the applications of families who
cheer for a certain baseball team should fail this test if the daycare cannot show how the
restriction bears a reasonable relationship to a permissible charitable goal. That is not to
say that such a restriction would not be permissible under any circumstances. Suppose a
scholarship, which is funded through a baseball team’s charitable foundation, restricts its
4
As the Minnesota Supreme Court has put it, a restriction on the charitable institution’s
services that is “designed to assure that the benefits will inure to those most deserving,
most in need, or most likely to be of increased public usefulness when the benefits have
been assimilated” would likely bear a reasonable relationship to the charitable goal. State
v Evans Scholars Foundation of Minn, Inc, 278 Minn 74, 78; 153 NW2d 148 (1967). A
charity is not required, however, to implement only such restrictions.
12
applications to fans of the team. If the foundation can show that its fundraising is more
successful when the application process is limited to fans of the team, then even this
restriction might pass the test articulated today because the baseball team cannot offer
scholarships if it is not able to gain the necessary donations to fund them. 5
In short, the relationship between the institution’s restriction and its charitable goal
need not be the most direct or obvious. Any reasonable restriction that is implemented to
further a charitable goal that passes factor four is acceptable. While this test is quite
deferential to the charitable institution, we note that charity is, by definition, “a gift.” See
Retirement Homes of Detroit, 416 Mich at 349 (concluding that the petitioner’s
retirement home provided no gift to residents and therefore was not charity). The
Legislature has deemed gifts that are beneficial to members of society worthy of
encouragement. A deferential test is warranted given that the tax statute itself is silent as
to the restrictions a charity may or may not place on its services. MCL 211.7o; MCL
211.9(a). Therefore, we hesitate to stringently limit charitable institutions.
Accordingly, rather than focusing on the “group” that a charitable institution
“exist[s] to serve,” Wexford, 474 Mich at 213, we hold that the key question a court must
ask when evaluating whether an institution has met Wexford’s third factor is whether the
restrictions or conditions the institution imposes on its charity bear a reasonable
relationship to a permissible charitable goal. The question in this case, then, is whether
5
Whether the desire to attract donors or the need to increase an organization’s funds will
always justify restrictions on the charitable services offered is not something we decide
today; the relationship between the proffered restriction and the charitable goal must be
evaluated for reasonableness on a case-by-case basis.
13
the conditions for entry into Baruch’s charitable Income Based Program—specifically,
the requirement that an individual be a resident and make 24 monthly payments before
being accepted into the program—violates factor three of the Wexford test. Under our
clarification of this factor, Baruch’s conditions will fail only if they are not reasonably
related to a permissible charitable goal under factor four.
Because the Tax Tribunal and the Court of Appeals decided the question in this
case on the basis of an incorrect understanding of Wexford factor three, we vacate those
portions of the opinions discussing the third factor and remand this case to the Tax
Tribunal for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Bridget M. McCormack
Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Joan L. Larsen
Kurtis T. Wilder
14